On Jul 21, 2011, at 7:33 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
>> Come on, Barry~~that's not the problem. >> Why didn't he mention it upfront then, >> if he's so "honest" about it? >> It's deceptive. > > I disagree. The word I would us is "irrelevant." It's completely relevant. He's trying to sell something that belonged to someone he was once devoted to but now apparently disdains, quite strongly, without letting on how he has trash-talked the guy. If what he was trying to sell wasn't based on "devotion" to begin with, you might have a case. In this case, it's the height of hypocrisy. He mentions how much he spent while in the TMO~~so what? It was his own choice. The universe, or anyone else, does not owe him some cosmic reimbursement. And implying it does, vis a vis these sandals or any other way, is enabling. Not to mention that selling someone's old, smelly shoes is kind of, well, weird. > Why should what he personally believes about Maharishi > have any relationship to the value of what he's trying > to sell *to those who would consider it of value*? It isn't what he "believes," it what he says out of one side of his mouth, and then out of the other. A simple disclaimer at the beginning would have remedied that. > >> Not to mention that >> every suggestion (or almost every) that >> he's gotten as to how he could go about >> selling the sandals he has made excuses as >> to why that's beyond him, and whined about >> why nobody is giving him millions, and how is >> he going to live for the next 20 years, blah >> blah blah. As if it's the responsibility of anyone >> else other than himself to remedy his >> situation. > > That I'll give you. I think that's a bit "off," but > not necessarily surprising for someone who has been > "out of the world" as long as Mark has. > >> This guy is 65?? It's pathetic. >> He's wasted his life in flaky, pseudo- >> spiritual pursuits (take a look at his >> website) instead of actually, you know, >> working, and now he expects the universe, >> apparently, to reimburse him. Or some >> TM-related sugar-daddy. I wish him >> luck. > > I would not say that he has "wasted his life," no > more than I'd say that about Nabby, or Curtis, or > myself. We made choices. Now we get to "make do" > with the fallout of those choices. You and Curtis are paying your own way without begging for $$ from strangers~~whole different thing. I realize he picked up this pathetic habit in the TMO, but it's been over 25 years since he worked there. Isn't it time to move on, and realize that whatever he learned there vis-a-vis using your friends to support your lifestyle, doesn't work? And that maybe he should take some responsibility for his own situation, without still blaming MMY, while simultaneously feigning devotion here. > When Rick says positive things about Maharishi, as > he often does, do you consider that "damage control," > or what he really believes? Same with Curtis. He also > committed the Cardinal Sin of speaking to reporters. And when have they ever tried to sell any of MMY's garbage as "holy relics"? I'm not sure why you keep mentioning false equivalencies. They're not trying to make $$ by pretending to be something that they're not. > So when he says the occasional positive thing about > the benefit he feels he received from his time in > the TMO, or his continuing practice of TM, is he > being "dishonest" in your opinion? See above. > > I get it. You think that on one level the whole idea > of these friggin' sandals being considered holy > relics because they contain microtraces of MMY's > holy footsweat is silly. I do, too, as should have > been obvious by me riffing on Judith or some of the > other women he had sex with selling off their "blue > dresses," Monica Lewinsky-style. > > But on the other hand, as such diverse people as > Curtis and Judy have said, I fully recognize that > for many people these sandals *would* have a real > value, and that they might feel lucky to have them. > > For a million bucks? Probably not. For that much > you could buy yourself a Burger King crown and > some robes and wear them in public. It's not like > anyone is going to be able to wear these sandals > down to the mall and have anyone notice them > emanating a brilliant golden glow and fall at > the feet of the person wearing them in fervent > worship. But some might enjoy keeping them in > their house or on their meditation table, for > whatever value they might have *for them*. > > I see nothing wrong with this, if they've got > the money. I *do* see something wrong with trying > to get between these potential buyers and the > merchandise by implying heavily that the seller > is a Bad Person for doing nothing more than what > we do every day on this forum -- honestly speak- > ing his mind. Again, see above. It's not the selling, it's the hypocrisy. Sal
